29 October 2012

There is an urban legend that has been floating around for some years now, that the word racist was coined by Leon Trotsky, for the purpose of cowing and intimidating opponents of leftist ideology. In his History of the Russian Revolution Trotsky applied the word racist to Slavophiles, who opposed Communism.

Just from the word's etymology (the word race with a suffix added) it is not immediately apparent why this word is supposed to be inherently derogatory. Words like anarchist, communist, and fascist have a negative connotation for many people, but that is because of their perspectives on anarchism, communism, and fascism, not because the words are inherently derogatory. The words anarchist, communist, and fascist have objective content toward which one may be positively or negatively disposed. Likewise the word racist. Objectively, it seems to denote somebody for whom race is a concern.

Is it not possible that Trotsky's use of the word, regardless of what his feelings about racism may have been, was merely descriptive, insofar as the effort of Slavs to assert and preserve their Slavic identity inherently involves a concern with race? Are not racists, as Trotsky regarded them, essentially just a species of anti-Communist, rejecting submersion into nondescript humanity under alien personalities and interests?

Our so-called conservatives in the United States do not ask such questions. If the left uses a term with a negative feeling attached, our conservatives accept that what the term denotes is objectively negative. If leftists and Jew-controlled mass-media disapprove of racists and racism, our so-called conservatives will not dispute that value judgment; for the purpose of rhetoric they will even embrace it. Conservatives outwardly accept that racists and racism are bad, and will not challenge it.

What the conservatives like to do instead of debunking their enemies' assumptions, which are also supported by mass-media, is to try to find a way to throw an accusation back at them, even a ridiculous accusation based on a specious argument and a flimsy premise. (I believe that this preference for responding with accusations, rather than truth and reason, derives from the fact that staying on the attack means not having to clarify one's own position on touchy matters. For somebody trying to win a popularity contest in the short term, rather than inform and educate for the long term, it makes perfect sense to try to keep one's own positions obscure.) The legend that Leon Trotsky coined the word racist offers a basis for that kind of rhetoric. It seems a silly argument, but they will say something like, If you use the word racist then you are a bad person like Communist mass-murderer Leon Trotsky, because he invented that word!

Did Trotsky really invent that word? No, apparently not. The work in which Trotsky is supposed to have coined that word was written and published in Russian in 1930. I found several examples of the French form, raciste, preceding Trotsky's use of the word by far.

TRANSLATION: No doubt that before arriving at complete internationalism, there will be a stage which will be racism; but it must be hoped that the layover will not be too long, that it will be rapidly surpassed. Communism, which appears that it must inevitably be regulated at the beginning of its functioning, especially in regard to international trade, will bring about the establishment of racist federations (Latin, Slavic, Germanic, etc.). Anarchy -- which we can glimpse at the end of two or three generations when, as a result of the development of production, any regulations will have become superfluous -- will bring the end of racism and the advent of a humanity without borders.

Although Malato was not in favor of racistes or racisme as such, regarding them as constituting an intermediate stage on the path from the destruction of the existing empires to his ideal of global anarchy, his use of those words back in the late 19th century was clearly not polemical but based on their objective content. Malato saw a tendency in Europe toward reorganizing political boundaries and allegiances along racial (or ethnic) lines, and he called this tendency racism. Note also that Malato refers to Pan-Slavism as a form of racism, thus anticipating Trotsky's specific application of the word.

Pratt was a Baptist religious zealot who was particularly devoted to stamping out the identities of various North American tribes through assimilation. NPR's author for some reason finds it paradoxical that somebody who condemns racism would be trying to stamp out the racial as well as the specific ethnic identities of Cheyenne, Choctaw, or Muscogee, when in fact it is perfectly consistent. Racism in its proper meaning, as we see with Charles Malato and the Occitanian separatists a century ago (contemporary with Pratt), means concern for one's race (however that race is defined), and an impulse to preserve that race, and, in accord with that, organization along racial lines. To condemn racism as such is ultimately to condemn the preservation of any race, with the mongrelization of all mankind, explicitly hoped by some, being the predictable long-term result. Deliberate destruction of races through assimilation and mixture, as advanced -- although in a more direct and obvious manner than we usually see -- by Richard Henry Pratt with his Carlisle Indian Industrial School, is the ultimate implication of anti-racism. It is remarkable that anyone pretends to be confused about this.

Positive Racism

I find pensée raciste (French for “racist thought”) and individualité raciste (“racist individuality”) in the volume of La Terro d’oc: revisto felibrenco e federalisto (a periodical championing the cultural and ethnic identity of people in southern France) for the year 1906. Here the word racist was used without a hint of negativity:

TRANSLATION: I express my best wishes for the success of your projects, because I am
convinced that, in the federation of the peoples of Langue d’Oc fighting
for their interests and the emancipation of their racist thought, the prestige of Toulouse will benefit.

TRANSLATION: This unfortunate South! He is a victim in every way! Ruined, robbed,
brutalized, it’s a fate of conquered countries that one reserves for
him, and whatever would be likely to characterize his racist individuality
and whatever’s survival or worship could make him regain consciousness
of himself to snatch him from his torpor and safeguard his moral and
material interests, is it good for anything except to be combated and
ridiculed?

While
racists were bad people for Leon Trotsky, some people in Occitania in
1906 did not share that value-judgment, because they had a different
perspective and different interests.

Finally there is the Théorie du Racisme (Theory of Racism) written by a former volunteer of the Légion de Charlemagne, René Binet. He wrote in 1950:

Several years ago, a flag was
raised over the world. It is not the flag of a nation, nor that of a
party, but the flag of a new breed of men armed with new knowledge and
belonging to all the White nations: these men are racists.

The
powers of the old world, the adherents of ancient philosophies, the
servants of old divinities, have joined forces to combat this type of
man and to tear down his emblem.

From
now on, everyone anywhere on the globe who opposes the decay of his
people, the decline of his race, and enslavement, will be accused of “racism” and “fascism” because he took up the flag.

Thus
the time has come for racists to declare openly their will to save
those of our values​​ that
still can be saved, and to proclaim before the obsolete world that makes
an insult of the word racist, what it really means to be racist.

Why should I accept the
value-judgments of my enemies? The
label racist is only an effective attack if it is perceived as one,
which means, only if the value-judgment attached to it is accepted.
Don't accept that! If you can stop worrying about being called a
racist, if you can refrain from using a barrage of flaky counterattacks
(the way "conservatives" do) to avoid talking about your own real views, then you can be sincere and really communicate with people.
You might even have a chance to explain that almost everybody is racist
and that it's normal -- which is a fundamental fact that every White
person needs to know.

09 October 2012

Certain
nationalists in recent years have taken the position that historical
revisionism, specifically in regard to the so-called Holocaust, is
unworthy of effort. They say that it has not accomplished much.

By what measurement does somebody claim that historical revisionism has not
accomplished much when people in positions of authority would never
admit being influenced by it? Whatever influence revisionism has had
will be largely untraceable.I think it has had a lot of influence. It seemed to me, when Kofi Annan
said at the Durban anti-racist conference in 2001 that the State of
Israel should stop using the Holocaust as an excuse, that the fact that
the veracity of the Holocaust story had been disputed for many years,
with some arguments that are unassailable, very likely lay somewhere
behind that statement.
.

There is a dialectical process that has to be taken into account. When
somebody takes the extreme position that there was no Holocaust, others
are influenced by that, whether they wish to be influenced or not. Some
of them will then say, I am not a Holocaust denier but it does seem to me that there has been some exaggeration, or alternately, I am not a Holocaust-denier but the
Jewish exploitation of that story is over the top — which is what the
Secretary-General of the United Nations effectively said.Look at all the Google hits for “I am not a Holocaust-denier but”: 6620 hits for that exact combination of words in the English language.These people are able to speak more freely because there are
“Holocaust-deniers” that have taken the extreme position. That is a
major part of the influence of revisionism.Extreme positions, insofar as they carry any credibility at all, define
the limits of discourse. Shocking and upsetting people is part of the
dialectical process. This is why it’s wrong to try to cater to people’s
sensitivities at the expense of facts and logic (the basis of
credibility) as Greggy Johnson has recently advocated, and as Mark Weber has been
practicing for some years now.

The Iron Chancellor, the man who created modern Germany, acted imprudently where Jews were concerned.

Bismarck,
the German Reich, and the Jews

Alfred
Rosenberg

(Völkischer Beobachter, 22 May
1921)

Translated by Hadding Scott, 2012

The birthday of the Iron Chancellor was
reverently observed in all parts of Germany even in 1921. Now that his work lies in heaps of rubble, having been
smashed by criminal hands, perhaps a light begins
gradually to dawn, even for the most idiotic democrat of German blood, over the
greatness of the still so recent German past. Not to mention the righteous
individuals who from the very start were unable, thanks to Professor Preuss from
Jerusalem[1], to
regard the Republic as a German Reich.But as we look up respectfully to the
image of Bismarck, must we guard ourselves against making this image into an
idol. We shall always need the advice of the great chancellor. Many of his
principles will be standard even in the more distant future of Germany. At the
same time however we shall retain
in memory his dictum: “Politics is not an exact science. As the situation that
one has before oneself changes, so does the way to make use of it.” Above all
however we must often admit that the man who built the German house simultaneously allowed the woodworm to enter into the timbers of this house. This sad
fact should not be concealed. Bismarck once entrusted German history to a
Jewish banker, allowed him influence in Germany’s foreign policy, and brought
his daughter to the Imperial Court, therewith taking a stand against old German
tradition.By sentiment Bismarck was an outspoken
anti-Semite. He complained once to a delegation that almost the entire
opposition press was in the hands of Jews. About Jewish profiteering he spoke
powerful words in the Prussian parliament, and everyone knows his statement
that it would be hard for him to fulfill his duties if he had a Jewish superior.
It must be considered moreover that Bismarck was faced with a Prussian
parliament whose members he fittingly described as “individually rational,
collectively stupid,” that in the most important affairs of the nation he found
himself alone, and that for the most pressing needs of the state[2] no credits
were granted to him. Thus he went to the Jew Bleichroeder[3]. He went not in
the manner of a Mediaeval king, who would have taken back from the Jews for
state purposes the money profiteered from the people; rather, as the minister
of a modern “constitutional government” he contracted a loan with the Jew – and
even paid high interest for it. That was the beginning of the conversion of the
state into a trust, which today, through the 500 Jewish banks in Germany, has
grown into an enormous affair. In foreign policy Bismarck likewise not
infrequently intervened for the benefit of the Jews. Emblematic of that were
the development of the Jewish Question in Romania and the negotiations over
Jewish enfranchisement in the Balkans at the Congress of Berlin (1878).In Romania, around the middle of the 19th
century, the Jewish population had grown enormously. Usury, intermediary
commerce, liquor-selling: all these essential symptoms of Jewish penetration
through consecutive millennia became ever more palpable. All who loved their
homeland and their folk demanded a remedy for this plague of spongers numbering
300,000 heads. Thirty-one delegates made an exemplary proposal to the
parliament; disturbances occurred in Iaşi and
other cities [in Romania]. The “Alliance israélite” naturally cried
bloody murder about “massacres of Jews,” although not a single Hebrew had been
killed; they wanted foreign intervention and sent outraged protests to all
governments. Bismarck did not set himself against the financiers in Paris and
London, but wrote to Mr. Crémieux, president of the Alliance and
simultaneously Grand Master of Grand Orient Freemasonry in France: “I have the
honor to report to you, as an answer to the letter that you sent me on the 4th
of the current month, that the Kaiser’s government has advised its
representative in Bucharest to exhaust all his influence to secure for your co-religionists
in Romania the position that belongs
to them in a country that conducts itself according to the principles of
humanity and civilization, etc. Berlin, 2 February 1868, v. Bismarck.”As however the mood in Romania seemed to
become such that the protection-laws against the Jews had a prospect of being
enacted, the Berlin Jewish community got involved with a written petition to
the Prussian minister-president. And to that came the following answer: “Berlin,
18 April 1868. The king has instructed me to respond to the petition of the
Jewish community of the 6th of this month, so as to oppose the approval by one of the
Romanian chambers of a law, which had
been submitted against the will of Prince Carol, that affects the situation of the Israelites. It does not seem that it will
be approved, nor that it will be sanctioned by the
government of the prince even if that does happen…. Count v. Bismarck.”In this document Bismarck did not deal
with particular cases and express reservations in another passage just in case;
instead he fundamentally acknowledged the principle of gray liberalism, “humanity
and civilization,” which he had to battle domestically, as the basis for
acknowledgment of Jewish “equal rights.”Even more illustrative are the negotiations
about the Jewish Question at the Berlin Congress. Here the symptoms of the rule
of Jewish finance, allied with liberal rhetoric, manifested themselves
tangibly.The Alliance sent three of its
members to Berlin: Netter, Kann, and Veneziani. All assembled ambassadors were
sent a long memorandum, plus works of Jewish writers about the Jewish Question.In his history of the Alliance
the Jew Leven says: “Before the meeting of the Congress they (our delegates)
secured the support of a significant man in Berlin: Bleichroeder, who through
his social position had a bond with the plenipotentiaries and enjoyed great
prestige with Bismarck.” (Narcisse Leven, Cinquante Ans d’Histoire,
Paris 1911, p. 203.) Netter sent reports about the activities of the Jewish representatives to
Paris. Here are some of the most interesting. From 11 June: “If all think about
our coreligionists as does Monsieur de Saint-Vallier (the French
plenipotentiary) we have it made.” 12 June: “Lord Beaconsfield is in a splendid
mood.” 13 June: “Bleichroeder yesterday saw Prince Bismarck; he has best wishes
for the Israelites.” 18 June: “Today we visited the Prince of
Hohenlohe-Schillingsfuerst. He began his career with the defense of the Jews in
Bavaria; he would like to crown it with the defense of them at the Congress.”
21 June: “Bleichroeder spoke with Bismarck yesterday and obtained certainty
that the question will be laid before the congress…. He can rest assured.” The
reports about a series of other visits with diplomats, representatives of the
press, etc., read similarly. (Leven, pp. 213-216).All Balkan states and their internal
constitutions came under discussion. The extent to which negotiations were
conducted for the benefit of the Jews becomes obvious just from the fact that
the term “Bulgarian subject” was unanimously replaced with “residents of the
Bulgarian principate.” That was the theoretical surrender of the principle of
patriotism in favor of a nomadic worldview! This change was proposed of course
by the puppets of the Alliance, the French. Thus Bulgaria, Serbia,
Montenegro, and Romania were forced by liberal Europe into recognition of the “rights”
of the Jews. To the honor of Russia, it must be said that her plenipotentiary,
Prince Gorchakov, was the only opponent of this disastrous policy. It goes
without saying that D’Israeli-Beaconsfield placed the whole weight of Great
Britain on the balance for the Jews. He pushed forward Lord Russel and Lord
Salisbury as his spokesmen, but he himself said that he considered the granting
of equal rights to Jews as the fulfillment of a self-evident fact, without the
sanction of which the Congress certainly should not dissolve. Herr von Bülow[4]
said to Netter on 28 July that the demand of the Jews in Bulgaria would also be
pleaded in regard to Serbia and Romania, and that it was “a question of
principle.” Bismarck declared precisely the same. The Jews could be content. It would be well to note the words of the
historian of the Alliance: “The result of the Berlin Congress was significant:
it introduced into international law the principles which the French Revolution
set down in its Declaration of the Rights of Man. United Europe
approved it…. It is accomplished that these principles have become by the will of Europe the basis of public law and of the new states, and the condition of
their independence. It was a benefit for all peoples, and for Jewry, an act
unique in its history, the official charter of its liberation.” (Leven, p.290.)The president of the Congress of Berlin
was Prince Bismarck. Perhaps he felt that he was strong enough
to keep Germany internally free. In foreign policy he aided Jewry in a
disastrous manner instead of allying himself with Gorchakov, putting aside the
fact that he and the Russian otherwise faced each other as enemies. But he must
have seen that Bleichroeder and Mendelssohn, through the strengthening of Jewry
abroad, significantly shored up their position within Germany, and thenceforth
wielded more than twice as much monetary clout. When the great chancellor was
gone and little men stepped into his place, the affairs having been commenced
followed their necessary course: the political and economic guides of the “German”
Reich became Bleichroeder, Mendelssohn, Friedländer, Ballin, Warburg, Rathenau,
and so on. Thus went Germany from Versailles to … Versailles![5]One of the most righteous men, Paul de
Lagarde, wrote in 1881, still bitter: “There has never been a German state.”
Unfortunately he was right. Even Bismarck's state was still not a German state.Is it Bismarck’s fault? No one will dare
to affirm it. He accomplished something superhuman. He was full of confidence
in the strength of Germandom. Should one reproach this man, for whom all small
minds made life unpleasant enough, with the fact that he overestimated German
national consciousness? That the Germans – let it be plainly said – proved
themselves unworthy? Furthermore that they themselves did not lift a hand to
assist in building the German house, instead of bickering with slogans or surrendering
to the god Mammon? No, certainly not! We ourselves have been guilty, who were
not able to endure a great personality, and either cowered behind him or took
pleasure in petty fault-finding. Thus the Jew was able to sow discord
unhindered, preach class-struggle, and engage in profiteering. We do not wish
to condemn Bismarck, but perhaps to highlight the place where the blueprint of
the German Reich had an error in its floorplan. It is up to us to avoid it in
the future.___________________________1. Hugo Preuss, who wrote the constitution
of the Weimar Republic, was not literally from Jerusalem, but he was a Jew. Rosenberg is saying that right-thinking people cannot regard the Republic as truly German because a Jew wrote its constitution.2. The Prussian Parliament never approved
a budget in the years 1862 to 1866 because of disagreement over military
reforms. The Seven Weeks' War with Austria came in 1866.3. Gerson Bleichroeder was a
Jewish banker of Berlin with connections to the Rothschilds. He was the second
Jew elevated to the Prussian nobility, thus becoming "von
Bleichroeder." The first Jew elevated to the Prussian nobility was also a
banker.4. Bernhard von Bülow was attaché to
the German embassy in Paris and served as a secretary at the Congress of
Berlin. Later, during the reign of Wilhelm II, he served several years as foreign minister, then as
chancellor. 5. This is a reference to the fact
that the King Wilhelm I of Prussia was proclaimed Emperor of Germany in the Hall
of Mirrors at the Palace of Versailles -- on French soil -- during the
Franco-Prussian War, and to the humiliating Treaty of Versailles
(called the Dictate of Versailles by German nationalists). Thus a
period of German dominance on the European mainland began and ended at
Versailles.